User talk:Brianboulton/Archive21

Mahler and Rimsky-Korsakov
You mentioned a timetable on revamping the article on Gustav Mahler but did not mention whether you needed any help. In case you do, please let me know. Mahler isn't my strong suit, but I'm willing to do what I can. Also, if you could use a break sometime in the near future, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov is at FAC. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I probably won't be starting detailed work on Mahler until mid-March - got to be careful not to tread on anyone's toes. At the moment I am collecting and assessing source materials and looking at all existing Mahler stuff on Wiki. I'll keep in touch on progress. As to Rimsky, I'll check out the FAC shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for all your comments (though I'm usually embarrassed that you find as much as you do, I'm also very grateful for it). All issues have been addressed. Thanks again. Jonyungk (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Voyage of the Karluk
Per WP:NC-S, this article should be at HMCS Karluk. As you're expanding it at the moment I'll leave the move to you to do when you are ready.
 * The article is not about the ship per se, but about its last voyage and the consequences that followed. Like, for example, Nansen's Fram expedition is a separate article from Fram, or Discovery Expedition is separate from RRS Discovery. If a separate ship article is created it could be called HMCS Karluk - but there are questions about the validity of the HMCS designation since Karluk never sailed with a naval captain or crew and was otherwise known as "DGS Karluk" or "CGS Karluk" Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about the article and no worries on the map - I look forward to reading it and will try to make some PR comments when the time comes. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I replied at the PR page - thanks for the heads up. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(Discussion on map moved to Talk: Voyage of the Karluk) Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah! You closed the PR :( Well, now I feel like an ass for forgetting about it. Ping me when it goes to FAC and I'll be sure to do a comprehensive and proper review then. Promise--or just badger me if I dont. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wally Hammond again!
Hi. I've tried to shorten the article and generally tidy it up a bit. I'd appreciate it if you'd have another look. It's probably still too long, even though he had a long career. If you could point out which bits need improving now, it would really help. Thanks.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your help and comments!
thanks for your help with Johann von Klenau, which was promoted to FA yesterday. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll keep an eye out for similar contributions. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Al-Durrah
Brian, I want to thank for your support and comments at the al-Durrah FAC. Your input meant a lot to me in what was an interesting experience&mdash;though I can't say I'm sorry it's over. :) SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 01:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review Request
I was wondering if you could possibly take a look at my request for a peer review of the article for John Adams. As my first attempt at a writing project, I am intending to possibly get this to GA, and FA, sometime this year. Any help is appreciated. Connormah (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw this article, and I made a mental note to look at it more closely, so I'll be pleased to review it. It may be a couple of days, but I'll get there. Looks impressive for a first writing project. Brianboulton (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.I haven't done any of the writing yet, I'm going to take it from here.Connormah (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I misunderstood you. Without looking at the edit history I assumed, when you referred to your first attempt at a writing project, that this was the first article you had written. Can you give me a bit more information, such as details of the recent work that has been done on the article, whether you are working with others to improve it, and at what stage you see its development, currently? A peer review may be premature at this stage. Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am planning to work with Sswonk. As quoted in a message directed towards me, he said "I would suggest you go to WP:REVIEW and read up on how to get someone to give the article a thorough once-over, and then find someone to do that. I really think that is needed, and that the reviewer should have a strong background in biography of important historic figures. The article could probably be lifted to GA without too much work, but a reviewer might find many more issues than I can see." I believe that is a good first step going into the writing of the article. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand the position now. I'll give it a general sort of review rather than a line-by-line prose examination, and tell you what I think needs to be done to prepare it for GA/FA. If the amount of work needed turns out to be considerable, another peer review might be advisable before nominating the article. Brianboulton (talk)
 * Thank you so much. Connormah (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Royal National College for the Blind
Hi Brian. Thanks for your comments on the article's peer review. I've managed to address most of the things you highlighted. All but two of the online references now have details of publisher, accessdate, etc; but I'm not sure how to list the Charity Commission and imdb links - do I need to add them in full instead of using the usual shortcuts? Also I think the New Beacon articles could present a bit of a problem. Unfortunately I didn't make a note of the article titles when I worked on this before and they've been taken offline since I accessed them. I recently found a couple that were cached but these also now appear to have gone. When I get the chance I'm going to contact the RNIB to see if someone there can help to track them down. Thanks once again for your advice. Paul Largo (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I've expanded the article a little further, mainly adding stuff that I'd included in the lede but missed from the main text. Hope you get a chance to check through it. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm rather stretched right now, so I can't look at this just at the moment, though I will try to do so when pressure eases. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great stuff, thanks. I think I have them all straight now. I've also formatted the accessdates as they appeared in two different formats. I'll continue working on this as and when I can and hopefully add anything else that's missing. Cheers. Paul Largo (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive 20
You forgot the / before the last archive. Fixed and moved over. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WT:FAC summary
Just a hint, you missed a proposal, and also, putting numbers might help, because I replied with them. Mitch 32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 18:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Most gracious of you. I rather think the compliment should be from you to me, but thanks anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle at PR
Thanks very much for prompting me to write this article, which is now at PR. Because you played an integral role in its creation, I wanted to lt you know I was sending it "down the river," so to speak, and to relieve you with the news that it is the last article I plan to submit to PR anytime soon. I've simply taken it as far as I can without additional input, and could really use some help at this stage. Thanks again for your encouragement. Jonyungk (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I look forward to reading this soon. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments so far and the new lead section, which I have incorporated into the article. I have addressed your points and have asked a couple of questions, so I am looking forward to your continued input. I could use your opinion especially with the legacy section, as it is still convoluted and confusing compared to the rest of the article. Jonyungk (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the comments. The consensus seems to be that the middle is good but the ends need a lot of work. I also didn't make your reading easier in that, after some of your comments, I shuffled some sections of the article to try to improve the overall flow of the article. Thanks for sticking with reading it despite these complications. I appreciate all the time you put into this article. Jonyungk (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

LYNX Rapid Transit Services Peer Review
Hello and thanks for the review! As I have been looking at this for a while, it's great to have another set of eyes on it. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. The only one I am iffy on is the dablink to the LYNX Blue Line. It was in the LYNX template on the bottom of the page, but I have since removed it, and the dab is still showing in the tool. I'll fiddle with it more later, but it's frustrating me for now. Thanks again, and I look forward to additional comments! Patriarca12 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Home
Yeah, he will do, I think. Although I am finding Heath a more interesting character and may put him on the list after Home. Anyone who can conduct an orchestra while Prime Minister (well, besides the Cabinet) gets my vote for article improvement. After that, I think I will let the British PMs go, I don't see anyone interesting enough and to my liking to want to do. Although I've considered Attlee.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Alexander of Lincoln
Yeah, I know it took a while to get back to it, longer than I thought. Can you look it over and see if it all makes sense now? Malleus hasn't copyedited yet, so repetition, etc. will be fixed with his expert hands. I think I got most of what you fingered as wrong. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Belyayev peer review
No problem on the time it's taken to get to this. I greatly appreciate what suggestions you can spare, and look forward to reading your comments whenever you get them down. Jonyungk (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Royal Academy of Music (company)
Hello Brain, would you be so kind and take a look at Royal Academy of Music (company)? As my English is limited, I'm Dutch, I suppose there is something left to improve. Taksen (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to do a full review, but I have left comments on the article's talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I made some changes in between. It is obviously not a subject that can be written on a lazy sunday.Taksen (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Shackleton's whisky recovered from South Pole ice
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.72.170 (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Smetana signature
I have succesfully translated your great (and quite long, tough) article! I loved it! Well, here is the question: Can we add a signature image for Smetana like in Tchaikovsky like ? OboeCrack (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great idea - I was BOLD and did so. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes Baffled peer review
Hi Brian, thanks for taking the time to review the article. I'll hopefully be able to rectify the issues you raise. Thanks! Bob talk 14:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Karluk
Yes, thanks, I will post at the FAC page in a day or two. I've always liked Scalia, he became prominent (that is, more than just your average SC justice) while I was in law school and I remember reading his dissents in Morrison and Mistretta in wonder that a judge could write so powerfully. Never met the man but heard him talk at my law school in the late Eighties. I am hopeful of having it get through FAC, his 50th wedding anniversary is in September or I may hold it for his 25th anniversary of taking the bench next year. Or Raul could grab it at any time, I have the impression Raul is a bit of a conservative.

I don't know if I would agree that I go with dyed in the wool conservatives. Both Chamberlain and Diefenbaker were very much to the left of their parties. And I've brought Lane and Voorhis to FA, both liberal Democrats. I have Douglas-Home second on my list, I am experimentally starting on Emperor Meiji and seeing if I can make it work.

I'd appreciate your view on Scalia on the balance I've tried to find between making it legally accurate and making it appeal to the average person who will consult Wikipedia. The old article, before I "renovated" was very much too technical.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

24 Waterfall salute!

 * Thanks, glad you like it. I am going to add it to the park article, but wanted to use it to thank those who helped first. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

PR & sub-headings
Hi, Brian. This is in response to your comments at Peer_review/Brown_Bear/archive1. In preparing articles for GA and in reviewing articles nominated for GA, I've find that a very structure approach works well, e.g. So why did PR decide not to use sub-headings? --Philcha (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I really do think that coverage and structure are the most importance factors, as getting these right makes it easier to deal with the content issues, - and that the lead is last, so that it's easy to be a strict summary.
 * Easily distuingishes sections that have been reviewed in detail and those that have not. In some reviews one can see that sections that have been reviewed in detail have issues that are likely to occur as often in later sectons, and I may just ask the nominator to the the test for simialr issues.
 * I'd have thought that PR and FAC would have an even great need for sub-headings, as these reviews have multiple contributors, it can be hard to distuingish a similar comments from different contributors, and editing without sub-headings forces each one to search the text of the whole review to find a specific comment.
 * Subheadings can be used at PR, but not levels 2 and 3. Why this is so I have no idea; perhaps User:Ruhrfisch knows. It is possible to structure reviews in the way you wish, using level 4, thus:-


 * Philcha comments

Prose
etc.

Brianboulton (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks out to have sub-headings for "Structure", etc., but not the author of these sub-sections - especially if 2 or more reviewers products similar sets of sub-headings. --Philcha (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Beacuse all peer reviews are separate pages that are then transcluded onto the main WP:PR pgae, using level 2 or 3 headings in a PR breaks up the transcluded structure of the review (and it messes up the number scheme in the PR Table of Contents). Level 4 headings like this  work fine and do not cause these problems. Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PR backlog
I will be glad to maintain it for as long as you need. Wishing your computer a speed y recovery! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update - if you do need my help, please don't hesitate to ask. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)